Shury v. Greenaway
2014 Ohio 1629
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Shury and Greenaway cohabited from 2002 until March 2006; Shury paid for repairs, cars, cash, room & board and alleged he was to be reimbursed, claiming a $31,000 debt.
- Shury filed suit in 2012 alleging breach of oral contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud based on funds provided during 2002–2006; he later alleged separate oral promises by Greenaway in 2008–2009 to repay him.
- Greenaway moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B), asserting among other things that the claims were time barred; the trial court ordered a more definite statement and Shury filed an amended complaint.
- Greenaway’s answer included multiple affirmative defenses but did not assert the statute-of-limitations defense in the answer; she later argued the statute of limitations in briefing and moved for summary judgment on that basis.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Greenaway finding Shury’s claims were time barred. The appellate court agreed the claims accrued by March 2006 but reversed because Greenaway waived the statute-of-limitations defense by failing to plead it in her answer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims are time-barred | Shury: 2008–2009 oral agreements were new contracts, so limitations ran from those dates | Greenaway: causes accrued by 2006 when relationship ended; suit filed in 2012 is untimely | Court: Substantively claims accrued by March 2006, so would be time-barred if defense preserved |
| Whether statute-of-limitations defense was waived | Shury: Greenaway failed to raise limitations in her answer, so defense is waived | Greenaway: raised limitations in 12(B) motion and later in summary-judgment motion | Held: Defense waived because affirmative defenses must be pled in an answer/pleading under Civ.R. 8(C) |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment on limitations | Shury: genuine factual dispute exists about 2008–2009 agreements creating new accrual dates | Greenaway: no genuine issue; accrual occurred in 2006 | Court: Fact issue irrelevant because defendant waived the limitations defense; trial court erred in granting summary judgment based on a waived defense |
| Effect of trial court addressing limitations sua sponte | Shury: court had no authority to raise an affirmative defense for defendant | Greenaway: (did not press) | Court: Declined to address this assignment because reversal was based on waiver of the defense |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 671 N.E.2d 241 (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., Inc., 54 Ohio St.2d 64, 375 N.E.2d 46 (summary judgment standard)
- Jim's Steak House, Inc. v. Cleveland, 81 Ohio St.3d 18, 688 N.E.2d 506 (affirmative defenses waived if not raised in pleadings)
- Collins v. Sotka, 81 Ohio St.3d 506, 692 N.E.2d 581 (fraud claim accrues upon discovery)
- Aluminum Line Prods. Co. v. Brad Smith Roofing Co., Inc., 109 Ohio App.3d 246, 671 N.E.2d 1343 (accrual of oral-contract claims)
- Kotyk v. Rebovich, 87 Ohio App.3d 116, 621 N.E.2d 897 (oral contract accrual rule)
- Palm Beach Co. v. Dun & Bradstreet, 106 Ohio App.3d 167, 665 N.E.2d 718 (unjust-enrichment accrual)
- BP Communications Alaska, Inc. v. Cent. Collection Agency, 136 Ohio App.3d 807, 737 N.E.2d 1050 (statute-of-limitations is an affirmative defense that must be pled)